Missouri Library Association Board January 29, 2016

Transcription

1 Summary of Action Items: Missouri Library Association Board January 29, 2016 Approved ( ) Summary of Action Items and Minutes 1) Motion to approve amended minutes for November 13, 2015 made and seconded; Vote: STL 4, KC 2, MC 1, SJ 1, SPG 1; Motion approved 9 to 0. 2) Suggestion made to add a handbook policy that the MLA Executive Board reserves the right to review and to approve requests for support or endorsement; no official motion was made. As this is a handbook issue, Jodie will wordsmith and return it to the MLA Board for further discussion and later vote for inclusion. 3) No further discussion; but consensus that MLA would not approach KLA in regards to a joint conference in the upcoming 4-5 years. 4) Motion to ask Bylaws & Handbook Committee to come up with a process of Handbook review on an annual basis with a goal of a process proposed at the April meeting. STL 4, MC 1, Spg 1, KC 2, SJ 1; motion approved 9 to 0. Jodie will contact Alice Ruleman of the Bylaws and Handbook Committee. 5) Motion to approve the organizational chart to replace that currently in the Handbook. STL 3 MC 1, Spg 1, KC 2, SJ 1; motion approved 8 to 0 (one voting member out of the room). 6) Motion to approve the new committees New Leader Orientation and Presentation Academy ad hoc committees. STL 4, MC 1, Spg 1, KC 2, SJ 1; motion approved 9 to 0. 7) No official motion was made. Christina will continue to work with MPLD and MASL and will investigate creating a shared project Facebook page to tie to the GoFundMe crowdsourcing appeal. 8) Motion to approve the November 2015 Income Statement. STL 4, MC 1, Spg 1, KC 2, SJ 1; motion approved 9 to 0. 9) Motion to enter results of the Teleconference in the January minutes made and seconded; approval by unanimous consent. 10) Motion to record corrections/adjustments to the Executive Board minutes in the minutes made and seconded; approval by unanimous consent. 11) Motion to record the results of interim business in the minutes made and seconded; approval by unanimous consent. 12) Motion to approve the addition of the Outstanding Professional Librarian Award and the Community Partnership Award in 2017: STL 4, MC 1, Spg 1, KC 2, SJ 1; motion approved 9 to 0. 13) Motion made to strike phrase during a meeting at the Annual Conference from Handbook 3.6.1; seconded; STL 4, KC 2, MC 1, St. J 1, Spg. 1; motion approved 9 to 0.

2 Approved Minutes, pg. 2 14) Motion made to add CHECKED to so that it reads CI Bylaws must be reviewed and approved by the CIC officers, CHECKED, and filed with MLA Bylaws & Handbook committee ; seconded; STL 4, KC 2, MC 1, St. J 1, Spg. 1; motion approved 9 to 0. 15) As there was no objection to leaving the wording vague and providing the Awards Committee the possibility of naming a posthumous candidate/recipient, the Handbook will be left as is. 1) Roll Call: Meeting began at 10:37 a.m. with roll call: Jodie Borgerding (v), Diane Disbro, Katy Smith (v), Christina Prucha (v), Justin Megahan, Anna Strackeljahn, Chris Pryor (v), Tracy Byerly, Linda Elkow, Keith Gaertner, Vicky Baker (v), Stacy Hisle-Chaudri, Jennifer Peters (v), Eric Petersen (v), Mary Beth Revels (v), Renee Brumett, Erin Gray, Nancee Dahms-Stinson (v), Rachel Brekhus. Quorum attained with 9 voting members. Note: Rob Hallis, Josh Welker, Kristin Bennett, Regina Greer Cooper (v), and Barbara Reading also in attendance, arrived after roll call completed. 2) Approval of Minutes a) Enter minutes of Executive Board Meeting 2015/11/13 i) Thank you to Vicky Baker for the idea to add pagination to the Board Packet, thank you to Linda Elkow for making it happen. ii) Proposal to accept the following corrections: (1) In roll call, (a) Katie Davis should be Tiffany Davis (b) Add as attending: Gerald Brooks, Anna Strackeljahn, Keith Gaertner, Tracy Byerly, Linda Elkow, and Megan Bryant (2) President Elect s Report: (a) Strike development and replace with list rental before is being considered as a way to generate funds. Add the statement: No action taken, the Board declined to make a motion on the issue. (b) Add to discussion on meeting dates: The Executive Board approved the 2016 Meeting Dates. (c) Add to discussion on the Conflict of Interest ultimately, the Board decided that the policy needs more work and appointed C. Prucha, J. Borgerding, and T. Byerly to work on the document and to send it to the board for further consideration. (d) Add to motion to approve the list of 2016 Committee Chairs: Motion to approved 2016 Committee Chairs approved 7 to 0. (e) Update the motion by J.B. regarding signature authority that: (i) Jodie Borgerding (President), Eric Petersen (Treasurer), Mary Beth Revels (Assistant Treasurer), and Tracy Byerly (Amigos Business Agent) and strike Keith Gaertner (Amigos Business Agent) have signature authority on the following Missouri Library Accounts: 1. Commerce checking account ending in Schmidt Fund money market account ending in Board Fund money market account ending in Bohley Fund money market account ending in T Rowe Price account ending in 5140

3 Approved Minutes, pg. 3 (ii) Add that Tracy Byerly have online access to all accounts. (iii) Add statement that the board approved the motion unanimously. (3) Under 2015 Conference report: (a) Add to discussion of discounted registration for volunteers the statement: Ultimately, there was no consensus on the question of discounted registrations for volunteers other than to say that the question needs to be handled on a yearly basis and that whatever is decided must be clearly communicated in a timely manner. (b) Add to discussion of Performers Showcase the statement: The board tabled the auction item and instead agreed with Dan Brower s suggestion that holding the Performers Showcase is worth the effort, but that any monies that the organization puts into the event needs to be recovered. (c) Add to discussion of Audio Visual companies that the Board agreed with Dan Brower s suggestion that if MLA wants to look at a new AV company, Another Dimension should be contacted. The services provided in Kansas City were good. (4) Under 2017 Conference Report: (a) Add the Site Selection committee name and the individual members: Justin Megahan, Anna Strackeljahn, Dan Brower, Erin Gray, Lauren Williams, Angela Scott, Christina Prucha, Gerald Brooks, Jodie Borgerding, Tracy Byerly, and Sue Pruchnicki. (b) Add the site options: Hilton at the Ballpark, Sheraton Westport Lake Chalet, and Renaissance at the Airport, St. Charles Convention Center, and Embassy Suites. (c) Add board unanimously approved motion to host the 2017 MLA Conference at the Sheraton Westport Lake Chalet in St. Louis. (5) Under Budget and Finance discussion concerning the Community of Interests funding add statement that the board unanimously approved the motion to include the COI chair on the budget and Finance Committee. (6) Under presentation of the 2016 Budget, correct 2015 budget review to 2016 budget approval and add the statement, the Board unanimously approved the proposed 2016 budget. (7) Under the discussion on updating the CI funding request Form, add the statement, the Board approved the change to the Community of Interest Funding Request Form. (8) Under the discussion of the contract with Amigos, add the statement, the board approved renewing the contract with Amigos with one abstention. (9) As the Legislative Agenda Update results were finalized post-meeting, request made that these items be stricken from the November minutes and officially recorded in the January minutes during the Secretary report. (10) Lastly, permission to add a summary of the motions before the roll call and to make necessary spelling corrections, particularly in members names requested. Motion to approve amended minutes for November 13, 2015 made and seconded; Vote: STL 4, KC 2, MC 1, SJ 1, SPG 1; Motion approved 9 to 0. 3) Reports from Executive Board a) President: Jodie Borgerding Report: i) Information Items: (1) Jodie met with YSCI and 2016 Conference Coordinators about Performer s Showcase. We brainstormed ideas to make the Showcase attractive for attendees but yet be cost effective. Conclusion: Performer s Showcase will be held during Pre-Conference on

4 Approved Minutes, pg. 4 Wednesday in the hopes of attracting more attendees while lowering food and beverage costs. (2) Attended the December Membership Committee meeting. Worked with ALA s Chapter Relations Office to get a list of ALA members with Missouri addresses (work or home). The Membership Committee will cross-reference this with our membership lists in order to identify ALA members who are not MLA members. (3) Met with Joint Conference planners, MLA treasurers, and Amigos about how the joint conference went from a planning, execution, administrative, and financial perspective. This will be further discussed later in the meeting. (4) Created a new organizational chart that takes into consideration new structures and roles (i.e. Amigos, Membership Chair/Member-At-Large, etc.) that have been developed or changed since the previous chart was drafted. This will be brought as an action item. (5) Met with Jennifer Peters and Tiffany Davis to plan an online New Leaders Orientation for new Committee and CI chairs to familiarize incoming leaders with policies and procedures. Not limited to incoming leaders, the orientations will be open to all interested MLA members. The orientation details and date are yet to be determined, but we are aiming for March. Conference called for Monday week after next. (6) Worked with Tony at Amigos to get the committee volunteer form that was created on Webster University s Qualtrics platform moved to a platform that can be easily maintained and updated by Amigos so that it will be available after term as President. Rachel and Amy have updated the website with the URL link to the form. Next week, I will send out a call for committee volunteers because there are a few committees that are still looking for some help. (7) ed Committee chairs about submitting 2015 annual reports. Reminder if you are a committee chair and have not yet done so, please your report to Donna Upchurch and/or Jennifer Parsons to be included in MO Info and please cc Stacy Hisle-Chaudri for it to be added to the Archives. (8) Asked Christina Prucha to be the MLA representative at the State Librarian s Secretary s Council meetings. If she is unable to attend the meetings, I will attend in her place. Christina will provide a recap of those meetings in her Board reports and notify the Board and the Legislative Committee if any immediate action or response is necessary. ii) Discussion Items: (1) Research Endorsements. Last month we received a request to sign a letter of support as part of an Institutional Review Board application for a Saint Louis University librarian who is creating disaster health information workshops for librarians and local emergency responders with a National Library of Medicine Grant. Because the nature of the letter of support was basically asking permission to send information about the workshops on the MLA listserv, the Board voted and approved signing the letter. However, it was suggested that it be discussed at a future meeting if the board should essentially draw a line with a Handbook policy that states what type of research/grants/irb applications/etc. that MLA will endorse. Discussion Points: (a) How would we make a uniform policy as every situation would be unique? (b) Suggestion to leave as is and address on a case-by-case basis (c) Does a lack of policy leave MLA open to endorse research that we may not want to? (d) Case-by-case would allow us to not support as an option, and if we have a reason, an explanation why when support is not given, it should not be a problem. (e) Rare? First request received by current President, Past President had received no such requests. Agreement by longer-standing Board members and attendees. (f) Might it be worthwhile to have a statement that says that the MLA E Board has the right to approve or disapprove letters of support or letters of endorsement on a case-

5 Approved Minutes, pg. 5 by-case basis just so membership knows who has to approve and also to provide a statement of the leeway? (i) Possibly the right to review requests for letters of support (ii) Include the word endorsement (g) Suggestion made to add a handbook policy that the MLA Executive Board reserves the right to review and to approve, or disapprove requests for support or endorsement; amended to remove the or disapprove. No official motion was made regarding endorsement. As this is a handbook issue, Jodie will wordsmith and return it to the MLA Board for further discussion and later vote for inclusion. (2) Joint Conference in Discuss whether or not we want to approach KLA about doing a joint conference in 2019 or My notes from the meetings I had with the Joint Conference planners, MLA treasurers, and Amigos are attached. Necessary to consider from both financial and administrative views. The Board does not have to vote on a decision today. Discussion Points: (a) Discussions is from our end whether or not we should approach KLA; of course, they may be having similar discussions and may approach us. (b) 2018 is Columbia, 2019 is Kansas City; however, KLA is part of the Mountain Plains Library Association and will be co-hosting its joint conference in They may not want to co-host a joint conference two years in a row, so 2020 has also been floated as an idea. (c) Rotation is 2016 Springfield, 2017 St. Louis, 2018 Columbia, 2019 back in Kansas City, unless we decide to alter the rotation. (d) Significantly less money was realized from the joint conference (e) 2019 is quickly approaching in regards to planning; decision would need to be made soon joint conference plans were begun in (f) For 2019, site visits would need to begin this year. (g) Pushing it off to eight years sounds like a lot of time; however, doing it every eight years would allow individual as well as a joint rotation that would be (h) Last joint conference before 2015 was 50 years ago, may not be necessary to do it again so soon. (i) Financial Points: (i) Profit was $18,000 compared to $30,000 expected (ii) Additionally, Amigos and other costs need to be increased by approximately $10,000. Assuming other costs remain the same is a $10,000 profit from the conference sustainable? (j) Value of Joint Conference? (i) Benefit of large conference due to diversity in speakers based from two state associations. (ii) But, benefit to whom? Increased attendance by local members, decreased attendance by distant and smaller libraries due to extra conference costs (travel, lodging, etc.) However, is that unique to joint conference or to all MLA conferences as they are held regionally and rotated? (iii) What is value of joint conference to entire state membership? Essentially KLA/MLA had the same number of MLA attendees as previous Kansas City conferences; so one might assume that it did not attract more attendees than an MLA only conference in Kansas City would.

6 Approved Minutes, pg. 6 (iv) However, how do you measure value? It was a good conference and people who attended came away with a good value; but would people in four to eight years remember that added value? (v) Numbers of new members was recorded; but some may be new employees, not necessarily new members based upon conference, not sure that that provides any substance to question (vi) Joint conferences could be considered to provide more value to the members in that region. Joint with another state or region? Maybe not assume that a joint conference would be in Kansas City. However, it may have to be: 1. Southwest Missouri? Springfield and Joplin do not have facilities 2. Oklahoma not really feasible border-wise 3. St. Louis, but Illinois Library Association would not be interested 4. We do border seven states maybe joint with Arkansas in Branson? No further discussion; but consensus that MLA would not approach KLA in regards to a joint conference in the upcoming 4-5 years. (3) The MLA Handbook. Some of our current practices and procedures do not follow the Handbook. This is starting to become problematic for some, such as Communities of Interest Council, Nominating Committee, and Archives, who rely on the Handbook to guide the practice of the CIs and other MLA units. We ve never enforced the Handbook before. Do we begin enforcing and follow the Handbook or do we change the Handbook to reflect current practices? (a) If we do enforce, this would cause several CIs to dissolve because they do not have bylaws on file. (b) from Vicky requesting units to review the Handbook now is the time to change it if the Handbook needs to be updated. (c) Handle on committee by committee basis? (i) Some may need to find out what they should be doing and that will work they are just unaware of the Handbook procedures and policies. (ii) Some may be doing things differently because what is in the Handbook does not work. In this case, the Handbook should be updated. (d) Proposal that CI chairs and the CI Council Chair should review the Handbook and record update as needed. Amended to include all committee chairs as well and for the Bylaws & Handbook Committee to review the Handbook as a whole and to keep a record of inconsistencies to track necessary changes. (e) Vicky has been working with Bylaws & Handbooks Committee and has requested CIs to review and to update with possible changes. These were requested to be sent to her and to Jodie with the idea that the Committee would look over the changes and to put them in similar language to make the Handbook cohesive for the Board to review in July. (i) Should such changes be sent to the Bylaws & Handbook Committee or to the Board and each unit should propose their own changes? (ii) Proposal that units take their changes to the board for approval, then the board would sent to Bylaws & Handbook to incorporate the possible changes, submit for discussion and then vote? 1. In the past, Bylaws & Handbook drove the process, representatives from Bylaws & Handbook contacted individual CIs and sent the Handbook entries; then, the CIs reviewed and returned the entries with updates; and then the Bylaws & Handbook chair presented the whole Handbook updates to be approved by the board as a whole. It was somewhat organic as many of

7 Approved Minutes, pg. 7 the CIs were forming at that time and had to redo former organizational bylaws or create anew. 2. According to the Handbook, the Bylaws & Handbook are to bring to the Board such revisions: a Duties Handbook A. Review the Handbook annually corresponding with Committee Chairs, Board Members and other MLA units to ensure each section is up-to-date. B. Bring to the attention of the Board any items needing revision, along with the appropriate changes. But, that is just in regard to reviewing the Handbook, not comparing to what is being done 3. This is why a Handbook revision is needed! 4. We need to figure out what the processes they are two separate processes to review and update the Bylaws and the Handbook. Then, we need to clarify these processes in the Handbook so that in five years we don t face the same issues. 5. Do we have Bylaws & Handbook bring the revisions to the Board or the individual units? a. The advantage to having the committees submit individually is that the Board would not have to look at the Handbook in its entirety at one meeting and review it piece by piece. Having units submit may be more efficient. It would be easier to have Board revisions with individual submissions rather than as part of a larger proposal. b. It could be done in sections during different times of the year. c. Important aspects might be lost if Bylaws & Handbook brings to the Board and the Board asks questions or amends; if the individual unit chairs come, they could bring background rationale and could answer to specific points. d. These revisions could also happen at different times of the year. 6. Would adopting this process cause the Handbook to lose consistency with multiple authors? a. This could be where the Handbook could come in to review to make certain that items are consistent. 7. This should be done on a yearly basis. 8. Difference in process for CIs who report to the Communities of Interest Council Chair (who reports to the board) and committees who report directly to the board. We ve unfortunately had a history of unaccountability. CIs need to report to the Council chairs and committees need to report to the board. Hopefully, as we go own and create a history of accountability, it will become less of an issue. 9. Each of these entities need to ensure that their section of the Bylaws & Handbook is up-to-date. 10. The more we talk about it through the year, the more likely the annual reports and year-end items will be dealt with as important issues and not as afterthoughts. 11. One of the driving factors is the New Leader Training we need to communicate the true expectations. CI and committee chairs are often unaware or confused by what is current.

8 Approved Minutes, pg Return to the Question: Proposal that units take their changes to the board for approval, then the board would sent to Bylaws & Handbook to incorporate the possible changes, submit for discussion and then vote? 13. We need to make sure the process is as open and as documented as possible, the reviews and revisions should originate in the units and actions should go to Board for review and later vote. 14. The CI Council Chairs would submit CI changes; any changes of Committees and CI Council would need to be submitted to the Board by the July Meeting, sent to Bylaws & Handbook, and returned to the Board in November. 15. We already have a process for the CI process, what was asked by the CI Council Chairs is regarding the bylaws for the CIs, not the Council. The CI bylaws duties simply say that they are supposed to be approved and filed. The CI Council Chairs are proposing later that they also be reviewed. 16. Motion: Ask Bylaws to come up with a process of annual Handbook Review (There is already have a process for the CIs if we need a process.) a. Does this cover item 4.k as well? With additional clarification. There are other aspects of 4.k that remain to be covered. 17. Add a deadline to the motion? 18. Motion Seconded 19. Are there not Handbook items in the Communities of Interest, such as the Building Blocks Picture Book Award subcommittee, they are concerned with one set of guidelines in the Handbook which is not followed. Will the Council Chair be in charge of that or the H&B? 20. Within the Handbook, the Council and the Communities of Interest (except 2) have their own bylaws. 21. There are a number of appendices, the very last page is the Bohley flyer from earlier than There are things that should not be in the Handbook. a. This is not an Executive Board function, but a Bylaws & Handbook function. 22. Return to the question of a deadline. Ask that the process be brought to the April meeting? Acclamation. 23. Return to motion on the floor which has been seconded: Ask Bylaws & Handbook to come up with a process of review Handbook on an annual basis. a. Is this not already part of the Handbook? b. It is as a duty; but there is no procedure spelled out. This motion tasks them with developing the process as how they do it. 24. Amendment to motion that procedure be brought back to the Board at the April meeting. Amendment approved. Motion to ask Bylaws & Handbook Committee to come up with a process of Handbook review on an annual basis with a goal of a process proposed at the April meeting. STL 4, MC 1, Spg 1, KC 2, SJ 1; motion approved 9 to 0. iii) Action Items: (1) Organizational Chart (a) The MLA Executive Board has evolved over the past 5 years. Jodie created a new organizational chart which includes the following updates:

9 Approved Minutes, pg. 9 (i) The Membership Committee Chair is a dual position with that position also sitting on the Executive Board as a Member at Large. (ii) Chart also illustrates which positions are appointed by the Board. (b) Motion to approve the organizational chart to replace that currently in the Handbook made and seconded. (c) Discussion points: (i) Amigos is included with the dotted line because it is important to spell out how they fit with the organization even though they don t directly report to the Board. Motion to approve the organizational chart to replace that currently in the Handbook. STL 3 (one voting member out of the room), MC 1, Spg 1, KC 2, SJ 1; motion approved 8 to 0. (2) Approve Ad Hoc Committees. Requesting that the Board approve two newly created committees: (a) New Leader Orientation: Jennifer Peters, Tiffany Davis & Jodie Borgerding (b) Presentation Academy: Christina Prucha, Nancee Dahms-Stinson, Judy Geczi & Tiffany Davis (c) Motion made to accept the two committees, seconded; no additional discussion. Motion to approve the new committees New Leader Orientation and Presentation Academy. STL 4, MC 1, Spg 1, KC 2, SJ 1; motion approved 9 to 0. b) President-Elect: Vicky Baker Report i) Information Items: (1) Updated and arranged for MLA Board meeting video conferencing. All seems to be working and we re all on! Question about preferred location for Kansas City Board members. (1) Prepared Handbook to be distributed to different leaders of the organization for revision. c) Past President: Christina Prucha Report i) Information Items: (1) Membership Transfer Policy: 5.11 Non-Transferable and Non-Refundable Membership Policy: MLA memberships are non-transferable and non-refundable. Exception: Within an organization, if a library leader has a personal membership and is the contact person on the institutional membership, then use of that institutional membership may be shared with an employee of that organization. The original owner retains the membership in name, in duty, and has fiscal responsibility for its renewal. It has been recorded in the handbook. (2) Literary Landmarks. Back in July, the board authorized Christina to look into setting up a way to get funding so that Laura Ingalls Wilder House be made a literary landmark. Christina asked for help and ideas. Appeals to publishers have been ignored. (a) Crowdsourcing had been discussed in July; however, this is difficult for organizations as opposed to an individual crowdsourcing at a personal level. Does anyone have such experience to help Christina set it up? (i) A Go Fund Me page was created and has been shared with MASL and MPLD. However, Go Fund Me requires the appeal to be tied to a Facebook page and needs the administrator s . Our Facebook page was done years ago, probably under Carol Smith, and new administrators were added with personal s which can t be used for an organizational one. This was one of many problems.

10 Approved Minutes, pg. 10 (ii) Posted on ALA Chapter list-serv and has received some feedback, including that there are lots of hoops. Christina will continue investigating these leads, but would love to work with someone here. (b) Assuming we can raise the money, we ll apply to have the house named a literary landmark in April 2016 during Children s book week. Because of her great influence, Laura Ingalls Wilder deserves this recognition. Missouri also should have the recognition, there are only two other literary landmarks in Missouri: Mark Twain house in Hannibal and the Kate Chopin house in St. Louis. (c) Christina is passionate about making this happen if you can or if you know anyone who can help, please contact Christina. (d) Questions: (i) How much money needs to be raised? (ii) $1000. We are not members of United For Libraries ($800 for members, probably isn t effective to become members for a $200 dollar difference). (iii) MPLD and MASL are both on board, but none of the three of us can do this out of our own funds; it is something that needs to be done through the charity of our members. (iv) Suggestion to involve the Missouri Humanities Council 1. They paid for the Mark Twain initiative 2. Their publication recently featured a multi-page article on the influence of Laura Ingalls Wilder, so she is on their radar. (v) Question of Support. 1. Could we approach membership and ask if this could be something that MLA could fiscally support? The main problem is budgeting, this was not part of the year s approved budget, so where would the money come from? 2. $1000 just need 100 people to give $10. We should be able to do that from patrons at just one library district. 3. This was the idea behind the GoFundMe plan that this could be linked from library websites, etc. Any additional monies could be donated to the house for needed support. 4. Another issue is GoFundMe helps administer the monies, so there aren t multiple people trying to track different donations from different arenas. 5. Would it be better in the long run to simply make this $1000 item a line item in the 2017 budget? 6. What about soliciting MLA members to contribute to a separate MLA account? Many issues with auditing, exempt status, unrelated business income tax. This is a potential problem with future auditing of the joint conference. This would be much more complicated in practice. 7. Third party site is also important as this is a shared endeavor with MASL and MLPD. 8. Is the unrelated business income tax a problem with the GoFundMe project? No, it would not be tied to MLA s tax ID. One important aspect of GoFundMe is that the donor typically cannot take the donation as a tax deduction. It also creates the question of is that income taxable to the collector? As the Laura Ingalls Wilder house is a tax exempt entity, maybe we should work with them as the foundation rather than a GoFundMe page. 9. Other option is to have donors send checks directly to the Laura Ingalls Wilder House. 10. The way the award is set up is that there is a sponsor for the award. The recipient is not the sponsor, it is usually an outside source that sponsors the nomination of the award. For example, the Missouri Humanities Council on

11 Approved Minutes, pg. 11 behalf of ReadMOre and the Hannibal Public Library, was the sponsor for the Mark Twain House (vi) How have we been in contact with the Laura Ingalls Wilder Home? Yes, they are happy with the idea, but they would not want to take it on themselves. (vii) If the problem stems from the Facebook issue, could we not just create a special Facebook page for this project and connect that to GoFundMe. This could also make it more equitable for MLPD and MASL. (viii) Christina will look further into this. Thank you! No official motion was made. Christina will continue to work wth MLPD and MASL and will investigate creating a shared project Facebook page to tie to the GoFundMe crowdsourcing appeal. (3) Presentation Academy Based on Virginia s Presentation Academy, MLA is proposing to host a series of workshops of our own this year. The team orchestrating this event is comprised of myself, Tiffany Davis, and Nancee Dahms-Stinson, the ad-hoc committee originally charged with investigating an online conference. We have started with a survey that has hopefully just wrapped up. We plan an in-person workshop in mid to late May that will be held at various stations across the state. The focus will be brainstorming ideas, fleshing out content, and writing a proposal. Step two involves an online one hour webinar on public speaking, engaging your audience, and creating presentation materials. We hope to have Amigos host this for us, the cost of which will be passed on to attendees. Step three will happen at pre-conference on Wednesday of conference. Participants will give abbreviated talks that you would expect at a conference and the facilitators (as yet unnamed) will give feedback. This has been approved by our 2016 coordinators. In between these sessions, listservs or some variation of a listserv will be set up to serve as a platform for feedback on projects and discussion. Participants who successfully complete the series of workshops will be given a certificate of completion. We are also contemplating holding a drawing during the workshops in which the winner will either get a complementary MLA membership or conference registration. We have not decided which. We do not anticipate making any money off of this event but neither will we lose any since we intend to recoup our costs through enrollment fees. (a) Interest is there, 153 responses thus far. (b) We will be able to use WebEx via Webster University, which will also allow recording for later viewings. (c) Tiffany Davis has been researching ways to create discussion forum for attendees between sessions to share ideas, critiques, etc. This is to make the process more engaging, fluid, and ongoing, not just static presentations at pre-determined times. (d) The concluding event will be an in-person, pre-conference event where those who have followed through will have an opportunity to come and do a short public presentation. So, participants will go through the entire process from coming up with idea, writing a proposal, developing talk and visual aids, and actually presenting. (e) This may also increase the number and the diversity of conference presentation proposals. (f) Final results should be collected today and we ll begin planning the May event. (g) 153 responses indicates a need and a desire for such programming (h) This is based on Virginia s Presentation Academy, but with modifications. (4) Engage. At a recent legislative committee meeting, a member commented that we needed to make use of our Capwiz site. Capwiz is being replaced by a much easier to use site called Engage. I ve taken on the task of bringing this site up. I ve contacted ALA and begun the process. I have just finished answering their questions and as soon as I have

12 Approved Minutes, pg. 12 one last image, I will be able to request that the site be turned on. From here, our old content will be moved to the new site where I can update and edit it. The new site is more robust than the old site and can do things like track news feeds that follow Missouri library funding and legislation. It can be used to target members who need to contact their legislators about issues. It can be used to broadcast our message. I ve told Gerald that I will maintain the site until the new coordinator takes over. At that time, the new coordinator can decide how s/he wishes to proceed. (a) ALA has been encouraging chapters to complete this switch to Engage. (b) We do need a picture that captures what is advocacy. Per Gerald s suggestion, we will wait until we get a good photo at Legislative Day. Beyond that image, everything else is in place to transfer the Capwiz information to Engage. We should be able to start using it and keeping MLA members up to date with legislative issues in Missouri. (c) Wick Thomas from Kansas City Public Library will also help with moderating. Christina will stay on as a moderator at least through the end of the year. [Fifteen Minute Break] d) Treasurer: Eric Petersen Report i) Information Items: (1) Approved expenses for Nov. 2015: (a) $ RJ Scherr, MLA Consultant ($ October fee + $23.08 for October conference call) (b) $ Christina Prucha- MASL conference attendance (1) Approved expenses for Dec. 2015: (a) $ RJ Scherr, MLA Consultant ($ November fee; $ December fee) (b) $ $15.00 Commerce Bank monthly fee; $2.36 PayPal fee (c) $ MoreNet and web hosting, 7/1/15-6/30/16 (d) $ Thusnelda Schmidt Scholarship reimbursement payment to Jessica Gould (Gould attended 2015 YALSA Symposium) i) Discussion Item: (1) Review December 2015 Income Statement Also See Activity Report (included in Board packet). These are preliminary figures. (a) Some questions for Keith. Balance sheet for Dec. 31, 2015 (pg. 31 in Board Packet): Looks like we are finishing the year with a deficit of $ The Net Income is listed as ( ) as a deficit. If we end a year in the red, do we make up for that in the upcoming fiscal year? (b) No, the deficit would be taken from reserves. (2) There is a long activity report document in the Board Packet, this is included because, when Eric had met with Keith and Linda, he noticed the large negative figure in the expense line regarding the conference. (See Novmeber 30, 2015 Income statement, pg. 29 in Board Packet). The (39,637.32) amount caught my eye. Amigos explained that the conference balancing was complicated. I m not here to question the November financials, I wanted to clarify what it was to the board. ii) Action Item: Approve November 2015 Income Statement. Motion to approve the November 2015 Income Statement made and seconded. No discussion, went to vote: Motion to approve the November 2015 Income Statement. STL 4, MC 1, Spg 1, KC 2, SJ 1; motion approved 9 to 0.

13 Approved Minutes, pg. 13 b) Secretary: Katy Smith Report i) Information Items: Glad to be back! Thank you to everyone for their prayers, thoughts, and/or positive vibes they helped more than you will ever know! Special thanks to Cindy Stewart Grant and Tiffany Davis for ensuring that the recording duties were fulfilled! ii) Action Items: (a) Enter results of 2015/09/15 Teleconference in January minutes. The Executive Board held a Teleconferenced meeting on September 15, 2015 at which two action items were voted upon. Request that the Board consider adding the results of those two action items to the official record via the January 2016 minutes: (i) Motion to close the Executive Board List Archive and to summarize Executive Board decisions made extra-meeting at the following Executive Board meeting and to thus be entered in that meeting s official minutes to be publicly shared; approved by majority. (ii) Motion approved to establish an ad-hock committee to develop and implement a spring online conference for early spring 2016; approved by majority. Motion to enter the results of the Teleconference in the minutes made and seconded; approval by unanimous consent. (2) Enter adjustments to Executive Board minutes in January minutes. Request that the Board consider officially recording in the January minutes the following corrections to the Sept. 29, 2015 meeting minutes. Because these were previously officially approved minutes, we cannot amend them; however, we can record corrections. (a) List of Attendees should include the following corrections: Scott Bonner (guest), Melanie Church, Vicky Baker as incoming President Elect, Erin Gray, Renee Brumett, Rob Hallis, and Keith Gaertner. (b) In the list of incoming executive board members Nancy DS should be corrected to Nancee Dahms-Stinson. (c) Motion to send letter from Missouri Library Association to the President of the United States requesting that the next Librarian of Congress be a librarian approved. (d) Mary Beth Revels, as Member at Large, approved as Assistant Treasurer. (e) Motion to update Handbook to reflect new Dec. 15 deadline for COI reports approved. (f) Motion to have Amigos publish the agenda for the General Membership meeting agenda to the MLA list-serve one week before the meeting approved. (g) Additionally, I ask that a summary of the action items be added preceding the Roll Call. Motion to record these corrections/adjustments to the Executive Board minutes in the minutes made and seconded; approval by unanimous consent. iii) Enter results of Interim Business held via due to timeliness issues to the January Meeting Minutes. Request that the Board consider recording interim business in the January meeting minutes (1) As a result of the November 2015 Secretary of State s Council meeting, the Legislative Committee proposed the following three motions. Vote held via Survey Monkey completed Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2015: (a) Motion to support all requests for funding to be restored to the FY2015 budget levels for REAL which provides Internet connectivity and managed bandwidth for public libraries and statewide information databases for all Missouri libraries;

14 Approved Minutes, pg. 14 motion approved 8 to 0, 1 abstention. (b) Motion to support an appropriation that will result in 55-cent per capita state aid plus an appropriate amount for equalization as was appropriated in FY 2015; motion approved 8 to 0, 1 abstention. (c) Motion to support Libraries are safe havens for teens, offering organized activities that develop 21st century skills and opportunities for community service; motion approved 8 to 0, 1 abstention. (2) Motion made that handbook regarding exhibitor pricing for conference be updated to: Exhibit space fees are recommended to the Executive Board by the Conference Coordinator(s). The Conference Coordinators shall construct their own fee schedule based on the needs of the MLA organization. (Needs include but are not limited to multitier pricing, early bird and late pricing, member and non-member pricing.) Companies that contract for exhibit space shall receive two conference registrations at no cost. Original vote held by Doodle Poll completed on Thursday, Dec. 3, 2015; motion approved 7 to 1; however, a second motion to amend the second statement to from their needs to the needs of the MLA organization was made. Vote held by Doodle Poll completed on Friday, Dec. 4, 2015; motion approved 7 to 0, 2 abstentions. (3) Motion made to approve a Conflict of Interest Policy and Form. Vote held via SurveyMonkey completed Wednesday, Dec. 9, 2015; motion approved 6 to 0. (4) Motion made that MLA shall endorse the National Libraries of Medicine grant funded research project conducted by the Saint Louis University Medical Center Library. (This endorsement means that MLA agrees to send a recruitment letter to the MLA membership via the MLA listerv on behalf of the project staff.) Vote held via SurveyMonkey completed on Thursday, Dec. 17, 2015; motion approved 6 to 1. (5) Motion made that MLA renew its memberships in ALA at $150 and in the Freedom to Read at $ Vote held via SurveyMonkey completed on Wednesday, Jan, 20; motion approved. Motion to record the results of interim business in the minutes made and seconded; approval by unanimous consent. iv) Enter the Annual Report by Tiffany Davis. The Annual Report should include a list of the year s action items. An addendum of the 2015 Action Items will be compiled and submitted to the Board and to MOInfo. b) Member-at-Large: Chris Pryor All items covered under Membership Committee Report. c) Member-at-Large: Jennifer Peters Report i) Information Item: Peters participated in a teleconference meeting on December 11th with Jodie Borgerding, Vicky Baker, Tiffany Davis and Christina Prucha to move forward on the planning for a MLA New Leaders Orientation to be held virtually in the spring. At the meeting we discussed the topics to be covered in the orientation, but discovered that there was some confusion and clarity needed in our handbook before we could proceed with an orientation. Looking at scheduling the orientation in early to mid-march. d) Member-at-Large: Nancee Dahms-Stinson Report i) Information Item: Participated in teleconference with Christina Prucha and Tiffany Davis regarding continuing education event for MLA members. e) Member-at-Large: Mary Beth Revels No report.

15 Approved Minutes, pg. 15 f) ALA Councilor: Regina Cooper Report [Not present at time; joined meeting later; written report referred to] i) Information Item: She recently attended the ALA Council Meetings at Midwinter where the following took place: (1) John C. DeSantis, Cataloging & Metadata Services Librarian at Dartmouth College, Karen E. Downing, Head, Social Sciences, University of Michigan, and Andrew K. Pace, Executive Director, Management Services, OCLC were elected to the ALA Executive (2) Board. Jeff Julian is the new public information officer for the ALA Libraries Transform multi-year campaign. (3) The Joint Council of Librarians of Color were approved for affiliate status with ALA. (4) The following resolutions were approved: (a) Resolution against Islamophobia (b) Resolution on replacing the Library of Congress subject heading Illegal Aliens with Undocumented Immigrants (c) Resolution supporting the 2015 Advocacy Implementation Plan, and Resolution to form a Conference Accessibility Task Force. (5) Council approved : (a) the latest interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights for user generated content in Library Discovery Systems (b) the following programmatic priorities as a basis for the FY17 budget and as a key framework for strategic planning: Advocacy for Libraries and the Profession, Diversity, Education and Lifelong Learning, Equitable Access to Information and Library Services, Intellectual Freedom, Literacy, Organizational Excellence, and Transforming Libraries. 4) Reports from Committees a) 2016 Conference: Erin Gray and Renee Brumett, Chairs Report i) Information Items: (1) Theme and logo settled Rooted in Community. T-shirt design close to completion will add wording for Missouri Libraries or similar. (2) Events schedule highlights: (a) Performers Showcase will be offered during pre-conference time slot no charge; no foodservice as in the past (b) Opening vendor bash Wednesday afternoon/early evening (c) Trivia, Wednesday night (d) Awards Reception, Thursday night at the Library Station (e) Secured performers Mark Bilyeu and Cindy Woolf for vendor bash (f) Exploring keynote speakers b) 2017 Conference: Justin Megahan and Anna Strackeljahn, Chairs Report i) Information items:

16 Approved Minutes, pg. 16 (1) The contract was signed for Westport. c) Awards: Diane Disbro, Chair Report i) Information Items: (1) 2016 committee members are Diane Disbro (Scenic Regional), Beth Caldarello (North Central Missouri State), Jane Theissen (Fontbonne University), Maureen Willmann (St. Louis County) (2) Goal to elicit more nominations this year. (a) s have been sent to the MLA listserv and have already resulted in questions and possible nominations. (b) Articles will be sent to MOInfo to raise awareness of MLA awards in an effort to increase nominations. (c) Suggestion to work with Meredith McCarthy and Sarah Reando of the Social Media Subcommittee to get this on Facebook and/or Twitter. (d) Suggestion to include testimonials from previous winners to encourage nominations. (e) Suggestion also to contact Rachel Brekhus to include on the webpage. (3) Missouri Author Awards, new this year, is a subcommittee of the Awards Committee led by Regina Greer Cooper. There were 31 non-fiction submissions and 53 fiction submissions. They have been distributed among the 12 subcommittee members to review and discuss at meeting in March and to finalize a list for contenders. ii) Discussion item: Giving out awards at the MLA Conference at a reception vs at a banquet was the first time that the awards were held at a reception instead of a banquet has tentatively scheduled as such. Feedback thus far about 2015 has been positive. What is the Board s feeling? (1) Many don t attend as it is a ticketed event and it is an added expense. More likely to attend free reception than an expensive ticketed event. (2) Attendance was increased drastically at (3) Attendance at dinners were sparse, usually 50-60, and that included the award winners and their guests, the Awards committee members, and the Legislative Committee members and legislators. (4) In planning the 2016 conference, Erin and Renee talked to many 2015 attendees for feedback. They plan for the Awards to be more of a celebration by all members honoring those who are award winners. There were a few issues that arose last year, but they hope to have those ironed out. (5) Many Board members who have attended the Awards banquets only attended once or a few times due to receiving an award or serving on the committee. iii) Action Item: Creation of two new awards: (1) Outstanding Professional Librarian Award The Outstanding Professional Librarian Award recognizes a librarian with an MLS or MLIS degree who has made a significant contribution to the improvement and advancement of library and information services. Nominees must have at least five years post MLS/MLIS work in the library profession. Creation of this award is requested by the Awards Committee to fill a gap in which professional librarians fall. There are awards for non-professional staff, retirees, and new librarians but not for librarians with more than 5 years experience. (2) Community Partnership Award The Community Partnership Award recognizes a Missouri library and one or more community organizations for developing a partnership that benefits members of their shared community. Creation of this award is requested by the Public Library Community of Interest. This was developed in cooperation with Laura Kirk and the Public Library CI.

17 Approved Minutes, pg. 17 (3) Motion made that MLA add to the MLA Awards the Outstanding Professional Librarian Award and the Community Partnership Award; seconded. (a) Question: what do these entail monetary amount, plaque? How will these be paid for? (b) Plaques; two for the partners in the Community Partnership Award. (c) These would come out of the Awards Committee portion from the Conference Budget. Unless there was a separate funding request that went to the Board for approval. (d) The Handbook includes great detail and the award for some awards, some say nothing at all. Recommendation to Awards Committee that the Handbook be updated with those details. This would require the Awards Committee contacting and working with each sponsoring unit. Indicate what the award will be (paper certificate, plaque, monetary, etc.) (e) Some of this was left purposefully vague in the past as budgets were unknown and the Awards Committee could have leeway with the costs of awards, unless the sponsoring unit had specified. (f) Financial considerations should be a factor, but some recipients have been disappointed when plaques were previously awarded for a specific reward and this person received only a paper certificate. There should be consistency. (g) The awards budget should not be dependent on the conference. If we had no conference for some reason, would we not award awards that year? They should be given whether the conference is held or not. (h) Do we want to add more awards when we re having problems getting nominations for the ones that we have? (i) Should some of the awards go away? Many are not well represented with nominees. (ii) Professional librarian is to fill a large gap in member opportunity (iii) All libraries are moving towards community involvement; this award seems like an appropriate award to add for the 21 st century. (iv) Perhaps we do need to review the awards (i) Regarding budget, Awards budget this year is $1000 for awards, $200 for gifts, and a questionable $1300 for the Missouri author award. Is this from the conference budget or elsewhere? (i) This is part of the conference budget, the $1300 is with a question mark because Renee and Regina worked out the final amount after the final conference budget. $1300 does reflect two awards (fiction, non-fiction). (ii) The Awards committee should review where the budget comes from for next year. This year s budget is set. (j) The new awards are for 2017, not Motion to approve the addition of the Outstanding Professional Librarian Award and the Community Partnership Award in STL 4, MC 1, Spg 1, KC 2, SJ 1; motion approved 9 to 0. d) Budget & Finance: Eric Peterson, Chair No Report e) Bylaws & Handbook: Alice Ruleman, Chair No Report f) Intellectual Freedom: Rob Hallis, Chair No Report